Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Eberhart


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus appears that the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Mark Eberhart

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This professors might be close to being noteworthy via WP:PROF on C#1, however I do think this is below the threshold based on some other AfD's I have come across. Below are the details for why I believe this is a valid AfD:

Arguments for Deletion
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
 * No. Scopus provide an h-score of 23, about 100 papers, and about 1670 citations. His most cited paper was cited 55 times. Other academic metrics shows similar scores. While this isn't terrible, it is not noteworthy by wikistandards either. Particularly that the most cited paper only received 51. The next highest ones are in the 30's. Considering he's been in research for decades, this doesn't cut the mustard to be notable under criteria 1.

2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
 * No. Does not seem to be the case, his CV (which seem date limited to 2017) lists his awards and none of them are prestigious enough to meet this criteria. The Jefferson Science Fellowship is with a prestigious institution, but it does not seem to be a stand out award that would mee tthis criteria.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
 * No. He appears to be a member of multiple groups, but none indicated that he was elected and is only a member. None state fellow status sans the Jefferson Science Fellowship, which doesn't meet criteria 3 either.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
 * No. I don't see evidence of this. His citations, papers, and notority seem limited and in no way stand out or above the rest.

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
 * No. Does not appear to have sat in any named or distinguished appointments, or any chair positions.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
 * No. Does not seem to have held any administrative posts.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
 * No. I could not find any evidence of this, nor any indication that this might be a possibility. No media coverage either.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
 * No. Does not seem to have participated in jourunal activities besides publishing.

Other Comments
The page is already pretty slim and unformatted, and in itself doesn't suggest noteworthyness. I was unable to find much of anything that could be added to bolster the page (it would just have to be better formatted with an infobox and stuff. His wiki cited he has published, but one is an autobiography and the other seems to be for the wrong person. With the exception of criteria 1 where it might be possible to argue it as met (though I do not think it is), he doesn't meet WP:PROF nor WP:GNG.

As an additional side note, some of you may notice that I have been proposing several AfD's for chemists and scientists for the past several days. The reason why is I have been going through WP:WikiProject Chemistry's open tasks and reviewing the chemists listed there and checking for ones that may have ground for either AfD or PROD. Through looking most are valid (though many have issues), but a few of these articles have been sitting relatively untouched for the better part of a decade and have long been in need of attention. I don't want it to seem like I have an agenda or like I am picking on something. I am generally trying to err on side of leniency as well as be as thorough as I can in my proposals.

Thanks! -- Tautomers (T C) 22:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Very promotional article in itself. It makes no claim of notability at all, and it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG either. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence of notability whatsoever presented in the article itself, and Tautomers has made a compelling case that such evidence is lacking even outside of this article. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete . I looked at the Scopus metrics for his 60 coauthors with 18+ papers:
 * Total citations: avg: 5189, median: 3713, Eberhart: 1668.
 * Total papers: avg: 150, med: 126, E: 99.
 * h-index: avg: 31, med: 31, E: 23.
 * Top citations: 1st: avg: 640, med: 394, E: 131. 2nd: avg: 312, med: 237, E: 84. 3rd: avg: 229, med: 161, E: 74. 4th: avg: 191, med: 142, E: 64. 5th: avg: 164, med: 123, E: 54.
 * Top first-author: avg: 346, med: 187, E: 84.
 * These metrics do not indicate he is exceptional enough among his peers to meet NPROF C1. JoelleJay (talk) 00:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, per NAUTHOR. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I agree that there is little sign of WP:NPROF.  However, the subject has written two books.  Reviews of the books include        .  I think this is enough for the multiple reviews (of multiple works, to avoid WP:BLP1E) of WP:NAUTHOR. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:AUTHOR, two major-publisher books (I think he also has a self-published one that we're not even mentioning?) and the multiple book reviews (many found by Russ Woodroofe) that I just added to the article: so far, seven for Why Things Break including two in big-audience publications (Science and Wired); three for Feeding the Fire including one in The Boston Globe. It turns out we're using these as sources for several of our articles, so I was able to de-orphan this article. I also added two independent brief biographies, one for a National Academy Fellows program and another from Encyclopedia.com. I don't understand the claims above about this article being promotional: it is and has been purely factual, merely listing biographical details about Eberhart and the fact that he has published the books that he has published. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Might not pass WP:PROF, but appears to pass WP:AUTHOR. I'm not seeing how the text is "promotional"; it's a rather dry mini-bio. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete revised to Keep. After looking through the findings regarding his authorship (which I did not think to explore heavily) this does indicate that he meets standards by a different metric. Thanks for looking into that further. -- Tautomers (T C) 19:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.